論海事優先權關於船員薪資債權的轉讓性

A Study on the Transferability of Maritime Liens Concerning the Remuneration of Seafarer

船員僱傭契約所生債權為我國海商法第24條第1項第1款規定得主張海事優先權之項目之一。然所謂船員僱傭契約所生債權，究係指其與船舶所有人所訂定之僱傭契約所生薪資債權，抑或其基於對船舶服務而生之薪資債權即可？又就此薪資債權如有第三人先行墊付，就此，該第三人得否主張海事優先權？再者，此薪資債權之內容是否包含保險費部分？此保險費是否包含商業保險，抑或僅指社會保險始得主張海事優先權？此等問題國內主要論著似未論及。近臺灣高雄地方法院103年度海商字第17號民事判決就此為判斷。本文則對相關問題深入討論。

According to Art.24 para.1 sec.1 of Maritime Act stipulated: “The claims listed hereunder may be secured by maritime liens and are entitled to a preferential right of compensation: 1. Claims of the shipmaster, seafarer and other members of the ship’s complement which have arisen from their contracts of employment.” However, in nowadays, the shipowner could employ seafarer by themselves, or though Dispatched Company making a contract of hire of work with shipowner and making contract of employment with seafarer. If Dispatched Company have pay remuneration to seafarer for contract of employment in advance, could their remuneration for contract of hire of work be secured by maritime liens? Recently, Taiwan Kaoushiung District Court Civil Judgement Hai Shang Zi No.17 (2014) have made a decision about this matter. We will have further discussion about this issue in this article.